David MacGregor on 7/7, 9/11 and Machiavellian State Terror

July 7th as Machiavellian State Terror?

by David MacGregor

Early reports likened the 2005 July 7th London bombings to Nazi air attacks on Britain more than sixty years earlier. A Sun leader on July 8 declared: “Our spirit will never be broken: Adolf Hitler's Blitz and his doodlebug rockets never once broke London's spirit." The comparison stuck, though the July explosions appear dwarfish beside savage Luftwaffe devastation of London, Coventry and other civilian targets. Indeed ever since September 11 media commentators have portrayed Islamic fanaticism as an eruption of evil unprecedented since Hitler’s bloody European rampage.

In this essay I want to draw a different parallel, though one that returns to World War II aerial warfare and its relation to so-called Islamofascism. July 7th resembles in many respects two other instances of terror on a world-historical scale: the Dallas shooting of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 and bin Laden’s nightmarish September flights into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Like these earlier incidents, the London bombings may be an instance of what I have called Machiavellian state terror, spectacular violence perpetrated against the state by elements of the state itself. This form of terror advances domestic and/or foreign policy goals of the established order, and may involve assaults (real or fabricated) on the state’s own military, on innocent civilians, or on political leaders. Government sources and compliant media rush to blame a convenient foe, whether another nation, a political or ethnic group, or a “lone nut.”

Success of such episodes of terror, especially in advanced capitalist democracies, relies on inability or unwillingness of effective oppositional power centres to challenge the official account. Both the 1964 Warren Report on the Kennedy assassination and the 9-11 Commission Report issued 40 years later, offer profoundly flawed narratives. Nevertheless, those responsible for protecting the public interest, such as the media, or mainstream academic researchers, have embraced these cover-ups as unvarnished truth. With regard to the 9-11 Report, for example, Guardian columnist George Monbiot contends that dissenters “permanently wreck their credibility” and present a “crazy distraction” that endangers “popular resistance movements.” Yet Monbiot admits the air assaults could have been averted by the Bush administration. “I believe that they were criminally negligent in failing to respond to intelligence about a potential attack by al-Qaida, and that they have sought to disguise their incompetence by classifying crucial documents.” Incidentally, Monbiot’s remarks are clearly not supported by the 9-11 Commission, which found no malfeasance on the part of the Bush White House.

It may be easier to recognize Machiavellian state terror when practiced by nations other than our own. For example, The New York Times—a long-time opponent of “conspiracy theory”—offered a sober appraisal of the Putin government’s possible involvement in terrorist bombing of apartment buildings used to justify Russia’s renewed hostilities against Chechnya. “From the start, the bombings were viewed with suspicion, especially after the discovery of federal agents planting what turned out to be explosives in the basement of another building. (A training exercise, officials finally said.) In Russian politics, the violence clearly played to the advantage of hard-liners like Mr. Putin.” The respected U.S. intelligence site, Stratfor.com, surmised that recent highly-publicized attacks carried out by ethnic Uighur separatists on the Chinese border may have been manufactured by Beijing in order to curry favour with the United States as an effective opponent of Islamic expansionism, and torpedo the nomination of an Uighur activist for the Nobel Peace Prize. Besides, noted Stratfor, “by raising the Uighur "terrorist" issue, Beijing can create a sense of trouble and a rallying point for national unity without needing to threaten its foreign relations.”


Machiavellian must be defined

The term Machiavellian is often misused. What the phrase should truly encompass in meaning is not what many people associate with 'Machiavellian.' This term used in the context of the above article is based off of only 1 book of the author, "The Prince." This was actually written during the time which Machiavelli was writing his masterpiece, The Discourses. After reading this I find the Republic to be Machiavelli's true ideology. The Prince is Machiavelli exploring an alternative form of leadership, but it is by no means the ideology the author overwhelmingly advocates. Comparing these two works is Machiavelli comparing ideas of what he calls a Principality and a Republic. Machiavelli's form of government which he advocates in the Discourses very much influenced our republic through John Adams especially Check out these great quotes:

"Let me say, therefore, that all forms of government listed are Defective: the three good ones (principality, aristocracy, and a democracy) because of the brevity of their lives, and the bad ones (what the other three turn into aka P- tyranny, A-oligarchy, and D-anarchy) because of their inherent harmfulness. Thus, those who were prudent in establishing laws recognized this fact and, avoiding each of these forms in themselves, chose one that combined them all, judging such a government to be steadier and more stable, for when there is in the same city-state a principality, an aristocracy, and a democracy, or form keeps watch over the other."

"..in every republic there are two inclinations: that of the people and that of the upper class, and that all the laws which are made in favor of liberty are born of the conflict between the two, as one can easily see from what happened in Rome."

He quotes Cicero
"Although the populace may be ignorant, it is capable of understanding the truth and yields at once when it is told the truth by a man worthy of its trust."

How's that for a 9/11 truth theme? Machiavelli's Discourses are incredible and very much related to our current political struggle. The article above raises important points about false-flag terror. Let us not however confuse the term Machiavellian with false-flag.

Right On

I understand where the author above is coming from. I agree with u also that Webster Tarpley's book is invaluable. It should be owned by everyone in the movement. It was actually Tarpley who turned me on to reading Machiavelli so I love that you brought him up. I still think the term false-flag should be used primarily by our movement so there is no confusion as to the definition. I just got done bullhorning a bit in San Francisco and was told mainly by those who heard "We know... wasn't there a movie about that?.... go to the financial district and tell them....go to texas and tell them (which I think Alex Jones will do enough for most texans;)" Keep fighting the good fight yall!

Some context for kdub and others...

Hopefully these excerpts from MacGregor's other essays on 9/11 and "Machiavellian State Terror" will lead to a clearer interpretation of what he's trying to get at.

I think MacGregor is trying to show that the Neoconservatives particularly, and other players in the American political playground ARE apt to use "The Prince" as the beginning and end of Machiavellian political science.

But he does note that there are historical parallels to the blood-soaked era chronicled by Machiavelli in the "The Prince", and our recent history;

Notoriously, Machiavelli insisted on the prominence of conspiracy and assassination in politics. “More princes have lost their lives and positions through them than through open war.” Contemporary resistance to theorizing assassinations and other forms of irrationality, arises from underestimation of human agency in the hyperstructural political science model of politics. Dealey Plaza is hardly an exceptional case. Recent history is studded with high profile political killings reminiscent of the tumultuous Roman experience chronicled by the Italian political theorist. The 1960s assassinations (Ben Barka, Martin Luther King, Medger Evers, Malcolm X, Bobby Kennedy, and many others) offer a sensational epic of blood. Many political murders followed, including (to name only a few) Chilean President Salvadore Allende’s death on September 11, 1973; the brutal 1977 killing of South African political activist Steve Biko; Indira Ghandi’s 1984 execution by her Sikh bodyguards; the murder in 1986 of Swedish Prime Minister Olaf Palme; the twin 1992 Mafia bombings that killed Giovanni Falcone and Paolo Borsellino; the shooting of Israeli leader Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 and the 1994 killing of Luis Donaldo Colosio, presidential candidate of Mexico’s then-ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). - Elsevier, Research in Political Economy Vol. 20, 2002

MacGregor's research is very much more open-ended, he encompasses Peter Dale Scott's notions of Deep Politics into his repetoire, and also applies Hegel and Marx where appropriate.

I agree that a more wholistic interpretation of Machiavelli can be used to our advantage, but for MacGregor's purpose, he's identifiying the limited application of Machiavelli, as defined by more... uh, cynical forces;

‘‘[A] wise prince,’’ advises Machiavelli, ‘‘must, whenever he has the occasion, foster with cunning some hostility so that in stamping it out his greatness will increase as a result.’’ I introduce a theory of terrorism inspired by Machiavelli’s observation. September 11 may be an example of expedient destruction ordered from within the state, a macabre instance of a state protection racket. What I call, Machiavellian state terrorism is terror/assassination performed for reasons different from the publicized ones; often initiated by persons or groups other than those suspected of the act; and – most important – secretly perpetrated by, or on behalf, of the violated state itself. Machiavellian state terror advances the ruling agenda while disguising itself as the work of individuals or groups opposed to the state’s fundamental principles...

...September 11, 2001 likely belongs to a long history of terrorist attacks and assassinations secretly ordered by powerful individuals at the centre of the state in order to destroy domestic opposition, or to make possible and/or justify already planned government policy. I call this Machiavellian state terrorism. ... It is secretly and deliberately confected to provide an excuse for achieving certain state objectives; and it is designed to implicate a particular group or individual other than the real perpetrators. Although the U.S.- inspired Pinochet coup in Chile conforms somewhat to this definition, given its initial secrecy and covert methods, the Chilean dictatorship – relying on support from elites and a significant proportion of Chilean citizens – openly acknowledged that it was the source of terror visited upon opponents of the regime.

By contrast, secrecy is paramount in Machiavellian state terrorism. Much evidence indicates, for example, that Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination, which severely damaged the U.S. civil rights movement, was a government hit, successfully disguised as the action of a deranged white racist acting alone (Pepper, 2003). Similarly, Stalin probably ordered the assassination of Kirov, leading member of the Soviet politburo and a possible competitor. Stalin used the December 1934 murder as an excuse to unleash the purges against his erstwhile Bolshevik comrades. Almost 2 years earlier, in February 1933, Hitler took advantage of the Reichstag Fire, which the Nazis started themselves, to promulgate the first exceptional laws against German civil rights. ...

... I use the term Machiavellian state terrorism to differentiate it from other forms of terrorism connected with government. To summarize, Machiavellian state terrorism is terror/assassination performed for reasons different from the publicized ones; often initiated by persons or groups other than those suspected of the act; and – most important – secretly perpetrated by, or on behalf, of the violated state itself. - Elsevier, Research in Political Economy, Vol. 23, 2006

Webster Griffin Tarpley does indeed use a broader, more positive interpretation of Machiavellian thought processes as he formulates his thesis for Synthetic Terror;

This book has therefore been constructed along the following conceptual lines:

1. Mass gullibility about the events of 9/11 is based on unmediated sense certainty re-enforced by merciless and repetitious media bombardment. Receptivity to the 9/11 myth is correlated with a Hollywood-style, sense-impressionist naïve epistemology, complicated by the schizophrenic and autistic elements present in Anglo-American culture. Belief in the 9/11 myth is agreeable to a way of thinking in the tradition of John Locke’s empiricism, which is here formally rejected and repudiated. I do not offer information so much as a method, and the method used here is that of Plato, Machiavelli, and Leibniz. I join Plato in refusing the illusions of the cave in favor of dialectical reason. I assert that understanding 9/11 requires
a conceptual framework; my approach is therefore conceptual and empirical, but not empiricist. The framework here is that of patsies, moles, and expert professionals discussed below.

2. This book stresses those aspects of 9/11 which indicate state sponsorship by a rogue network or invisible government operating inside the US government and military. Other aspects are given less consideration or omitted entirely.

3. This book stresses those aspects of the official version which are physically impossible. Many dubious aspects and contradictions of the official story are not treated if they can be construed as a matter of opinion, rather than being susceptible to rigorous physical proof. The same goes for physical evidence, such as pictorial evidence, where individual interpretations of what is seen may diverge. At the same time, I urge researchers interested in these aspects of the problem to continue their efforts so that the catalogue of physical impossibilities can be expanded as it doubtless deserves to be.

4. I have sought to be guided by Machiavellian political realism, rather than by the irrational appeals of propaganda. - Introduction, 9/11: Synthetic Terrorism.

9/11 Synthetic Terrorism is a brilliant book.

speaking of state terror.....

it seems as if 60 Minutes is going to engage in some major disinfo tonight regarding the anthrax inside job:

Tables Turned In Anthrax Investigation

They followed him. They brought bloodhounds into his home. The attorney general identified him to the world as a "person of interest" in the first major bioterrorism attack in the nation's history.

But five years after letters sent through the U.S. mail containing anthrax killed five and injured 17, the FBI has yet to charge Dr. Steven Hatfill. In 2003, he sued the government.

The resulting depositions of FBI personnel and law enforcement records obtained by 60 Minutes provide an inside look into one of the FBI's biggest investigations ever and raise the possibility that the bureau may have a cold case on its hands.

Hatfill, a scientist who worked at an Army laboratory where the strain of anthrax used in the attacks was stored, is the only "person of interest" named publicly in the case. He has maintained his innocence all along.

Hatfill is suing the government for destroying his reputation by, among other things, naming him "a person of interest." According to depositions taken for Hatfill's suit and obtained by 60 Minutes, the FBI official who oversaw the investigation says the bureau was looking at many more people.

"There were … 20 to 30 other people who were also likewise identified as 'persons of interest' in the investigation,' " the FBI's Richard Lambert says under oath.

60 Minutes has learned that today at least a dozen of those other people still have not been eliminated as so-called "persons of interest."

"I believe … they wanted the public to believe that they … were making great progress in this case," he tells Stahl. "It's just turning out to be a cold case."(HA! i bet....)

60 Minutes has also learned that the FBI's biggest hope to crack the case turned out to be a dead end created by one of its own investigators.(you dont say....)


This was pretty good.

Hatfill's attorney is a bulldog and deposed something like dozens of government agents. I think Hatfill is being hung out to dry and sort of a patsy -- only, in this case, he is much smarter than the average useful idiot. This entire case was all leaks and smearing of the guy. For instance, the government tried to make him look bad by saying Hatfill took Cipro before 9/11. The only thing is, he was prescribed this by his doctor after surgery. What about the other people in our government who started popping Cipro? If they have the goods on this guy, charge him. If not, get off his jock.

The one piece of disinfo that was propagated here is that the government says lot of the evidence has been destroyed.

yeah, not bad but as

yeah, not bad but as expected they left a lot out. thats disinformation to me when you paint a picture you know to be less than complete. once it was established where the anthrax came from they had to find a fall guy. enter hatfill. the FBI didnt think this guy would fight back like he has though. and like you said the-"he took cipro before the attacks" line is bullshit. ask Bush,Condi and the rest of them if they were on cipro before 9/11. i love how it ended-"this is turning out to be a cold case...". gee, you dont say......

State Sponsored Terror

From Israel Hasbara Committee 3/8/07:

# 5. Updated Travel Warnings
Israel’s National Security Council Counter-Terrorism Division presents the following updated travel warnings for Israelis traveling abroad. It is advised that travelers should avoid visiting and leave the area as soon as possible in the following high to very high-threat countries: Algeria, Afghanistan, Chechenya, (southern Russia) Djabouti, Egypt, (especially the Sinai peninsula), Jordan, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kashimir (northern India), Lebanon Malaysia, Mindanao, (southern Philippines) Northern Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia Southern Thailand, Syria & Yemen. Travelers should postpone non essential travel to: Bangladesh, Bangkok, Libya, Oman, Nigeria & southeastern Turkey (borders with Iraq and Iran). Travelers in general, should avoid visiting the following countries: Bahrain, Chad, Kenya, Kuwait, Morocco, Qatar, Tunisia. Israeli citizens are called upon to be especially cautious when visiting: Philippines, Turkey, Thailand, & Uzbekistan. (Sources: National Security Council Counter-Terrorism Division, GPO)